Search form

Featured Topics

To promote stable, constructive labor-management relations through the resolution and prevention of labor disputes in a manner that gives full effect to the collective-bargaining rights of employees, unions, and agencies.

You are here

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENT RURAL HOUSING CENTRALIZED SERVICING CENTER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI and LOCAL 3354, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO

In the Matter of

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

RURAL HOUSING CENTRALIZED
SERVICING

CENTER

ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI

Case No. 98 FSIP 143

and

LOCAL 3354, AMERICAN FEDERATION

OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
AFL-CIO

ARBITRATOR’S OPINION AND DECISION

Local 3354, American Federation of
Government Employees (AFGE), AFL-CIO (Union), filed a request for assistance
with the Federal Service Impasses Panel (Panel) to consider a negotiation
impasse under section 7119 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute between it and the Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Rural
Housing Centralized Servicing Center (CSC), St. Louis, Missouri (Employer).
After investigation of the request for assistance,(1) the Panel asserted
jurisdiction and directed the parties to expedited arbitration(2) by telephone with
the undersigned.

Accordingly, on September 1, 1998, I
conducted an arbitration hearing by telephone with the parties’
representatives. Each side presented arguments and evidence in support of its
position. I have considered the entire record, including the Employer’s
prehearing brief. The record is now closed.

BACKGROUND

The Employer provides loans, at reasonable rates and
terms, to rural residents and communities unable to obtain credit from
commercial sources, and processes the mortgage loans for individual customers.
The Union represents a bargaining-unit of approximately 500 employees, who work
in loan processing, customer service, and clerical positions, at grades GS-3
through GS-11. The parties have agreed to ground rules which will govern
negotiations over their initial collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Those
negotiations are to begin later this month.(3)

ISSUE

The parties disagree over whether bargaining-unit
employees should be granted ½ hour of administrative leave in conjunction with
their ½-hour lunch to attend monthly Union meetings.

1. The Employer’s
Position

The Employer would have the undersigned order the
Union to withdraw its proposal so that the status quo is maintained. In this
regard, the Settlement Agreement contains provisions granting official time to
Union representatives and affected employees whenever changes in working
conditions are proposed. The Employer also has a practice of approving requests
for time for the Union to meet with affected bargaining-unit employees on an ad
hoc, issue-by-issue, basis. While the current practices are sufficient to meet
the Union’s needs, it is nevertheless willing to assist the Union in procuring
facilities for meetings during other than duty hours to make the meetings more
convenient for employees to attend.

The Employer estimates that the Union’s proposal
would cost $57,510 per year if implemented. The associated reduction in
productive time would exacerbate the backlog of work to be accomplished as well
as negatively impact the quality of customer service. These adverse affects are
particularly relevant in view of the fact that the CSC has been under constant
threat of privatization since its inception, and intense Congressional scrutiny.
In addition, there is no demonstrated need for the Union’s proposal because it
has alternative methods for communicating with unit employees during nonduty
times. The Employer should not be forced to assume the costs of what appears to
be an internal Union problem by giving it a "blank check." With regard
to comparability data, the Union has failed to identify Federal, public, or
private sector precedent to support its proposal. The one current agreement it
references, where the parties have a similar practice, was implemented through
partnership, and authorizes administrative leave for the sole purposes
articulated in Executive Order 12871, i.e., improving mission accomplishment and
customer service. Moreover, because it was implemented on a trial basis, it is
not a permanent binding agreement on the Agency. The "lunch and learn"
provision the Union alluded to during the arbitration procedure, contained in an
expired agreement involving the Farmers Home Administration (FHA) is also
unavailing because it served a different purpose than the Union proposal here.

Finally, the Employer has concerns regarding whether
the amount of duty time being requested is reasonable, necessary, and in the
public interest, as required by section 7131(d) of the Statute. It also fears
that the time will be used for internal Union business, in violation of section
7131(b). This belief is based on oral and written information provided by the
Union during the parties’ discussions over the proposal. The Employer has a
responsibility to the taxpayer to use its resources properly, and to fulfill its
obligations under the law to ensure that internal activities do not occur during
duty time.

2. Union’s
Position

The Union proposes the following wording:

Bargaining-unit employees of the Rural Housing Centralized Servicing
Center may, upon request, use ½-hour administrative leave in conjunction
with their lunch period in order to attend monthly meetings of AFGE Local
3354. In order to accommodate the business needs of CSC, the Union agrees to
hold four different meetings each month, as follows:

11 a.m. to 12 noon

12 noon to 1 p.m.

Third Tuesday of the Month

11 a.m. to 12 noon

12 noon to 1 p.m.

Third Thursday of the Month

Management agrees to reserve Room 1612 [or other available room] during
these time frames each month for these meetings.

In addition, because of the importance of receiving feedback from
bargaining-unit employees during the parties’ initial CBA negotiations, it is
also willing to implement the proposal on an experimental basis only through
that period. Its goal is to complete the negotiations by December 31, 1998.

With respect to cost, the Employer’s estimate is overstated; based on its
past experience regarding the attendance of employees at Union meetings, $10,000
is a more realistic figure. Furthermore, the benefits of its proposal outweigh
its costs. In this regard, giving employees an incentive to provide input in
workplace matters is consistent with the goals espoused in Executive Order
12871. The Employer’s refusal to continue the practice after implementing it
briefly in September 1997 is reflective of its outdated "command and
control" approach to labor relations. This approach, however, is
"penny-wise and pound foolish," because providing a routine mechanism
for employee input will alleviate the need for official time which occurs now as
the parties operate in the ad hoc manner preferred by the Employer.

Although the Union acknowledges that having a third
party impose its proposal would be less than ideal, the fact that members in
another unit that it represents currently receive administrative leave to meet
with the Union demonstrates that the idea has merit. Finally, the fact that FHA’s
now-defunct contract also contained a provision granting bargaining-unit
employees (approximately 100 of whom transferred over to CSC) ½ hour of
administrative leave twice per year to attend "lunch and learn"
sessions provides additional support for its proposal.

OPINION

Having carefully reviewed the parties’ positions
on this issue, I find that the Union has failed to demonstrate the need for its
original proposal. The history of the parties’ negotiations over this matter
indicates that the idea of providing administrative leave to bargaining-unit
employees to attend monthly Union meetings initially arose because a similar
practice had been established in a collocated Department of Agriculture entity
whose employees are also represented by the Union. As the Employer points out,
that practice is the product of a consensus reached through partnership, and is
limited to the items discussed at partnership council meetings. In my view, its
existence provides little support for the Union’s original proposal in this
case, which arose through traditional collective bargaining. The proposal also
appears anachronistic, given that the parties recently agreed to form a
partnership. In these circumstances, imposing it on the Employer could actually
interfere with the parties’ ongoing efforts to strengthen their relationship.

The previous points notwithstanding, I believe that
one of the arguments raised by the Union in support of its proposal has merit,
and justifies the imposition of a compromise solution to the impasse. In this
regard, the parties are about to begin negotiations over their initial CBA. I am
persuaded that providing unit employees with additional incentive to attend the
Union’s monthly meetings for the limited purpose of discussing the status of
the ongoing negotiations and providing feedback concerning their interests would
be of benefit to both parties. In my view, because the Employer has an interest
in seeing that the negotiations are completed successfully, it is also
consistent with its current practice of approving requests for time for the
Union to meet with employees on an ad hoc basis. Keeping in mind the realities
of Federal sector collective bargaining, however, I am unwilling to extend the
granting of administrative leave through the entire period of the negotiations,
as the Union suggests. Rather, the compromise presented below will limit such
grants to the months of October, November, and December 1998, in accordance with
the goal for completion of the negotiations expressed by the Union. Moreover, by
including a requirement that the Union publish an agenda in advance of such
meetings restricting the subjects of discussion to the status of the ongoing CBA
negotiations, the Employer’s obligation to ensure that internal Union
activities do not occur during duty time is also adequately addressed.

DECISION

The parties shall adopt the following wording to
resolve their impasse:

In the months of October, November, and December 1998, bargaining-unit
employees of the Rural Housing Centralized Servicing Center may, upon
request, use ½ hour administrative leave in conjunction with their lunch
period to attend monthly meetings of AFGE Local 3354. During the ½ hour
provided, the only subject to be discussed is the status of the ongoing
initial collective bargaining agreement negotiations between the Union and
the Employer. The Union will publish an agenda in advance of the meetings
which clearly identifies this as the subject of this portion of the
meetings. In order to accommodate the business needs of CSC, the Union
agrees to hold four different meetings each month, as follows:

11 a.m. to 12 noon

12 noon to 1 p.m.

Third Tuesday of the Month

11 a.m. to 12 noon

12 noon to 1 p.m.

Third Thursday of the Month

Management agrees to assist the Union in
procuring appropriate facilities during these time frames each month for
these meetings.

H. Joseph Schimansky

Arbitrator

September 3, 1998

Washington, D.C.

1.The Union was certified as the exclusive representative of the bargaining unit in September 1997. Shortly thereafter, it filed a number of unfair labor practice charges that were later resolved through a Settlement Agreement. Among other things, the parties agreed to negotiate over the issue which is the subject of this impasse.

2.Under this procedure, unless a complete settlement of the dispute is reached during the hearing, the Panel-appointed arbitrator is to issue an award within 2 workdays of the close of the hearing. As part of the Panel’s determination, the parties were permitted to submit prehearing briefs. Only the Employer chose to do so.

3.The parties also have an interim agreement, regarding such matters as dues withholding and grievance-arbitration procedures, which is in effect until their initial CBA is implemented. In addition, the parties signed the charter for a partnership on June 29, 1998.